Dying 13-year-old boy wants sex

[RobertUrbanek]

Aside from legality, if a dying 13-year-old boy wanted sex with an attractive woman, would it be immoral to arrange for his wish to be fulfilled?

Would your answer be different if the dying teen was a girl or gay or lesbian?

[2ndRateMind]

Aside from legality, if a dying 13-year-old boy wanted sex with an attractive woman, would it be immoral to arrange for his wish to be fulfilled?

Would your answer be different if the dying teen was a girl or gay or lesbian?

Hmmm. I take it this is a hypothetical case. I should not like to pass judgment on individuals; that is God's job, not mine, and He is welcome to it.

But I do have a general opinion. Wanting sex, and wanting to make love, are different things. If this boy loves someone, and wants to make love to them, and the subject of his love loves him, and wants to make love to him, then no; I cannot see the immorality.

But if it is just a case of 'shagging', then I am inclined to the view that that need not be indulged.

And no, my answer would not be different, regardless of sex, gender, or sexuality.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

But I do have a general opinion. Wanting sex, and wanting to make love, are different things. If this boy loves someone, and wants to make love to them, and the subject of his love loves him, and wants to make love to him, then no; I cannot see the immorality.

What if the girl got pregnant? Is this person who he supposedly in love with also 13? So now she would be a 13 year old pregnant girl who is going to have a baby without a father. You can’t see the immorality in a behavior that would create that situation?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 22 by RightReason]

There is such a thing as contraception. And it is pretty effective.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

No contraception is 100% effective.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

No contraception is 100% effective.

I didn't say it was. But risk is one certainty in life. We can mitigate those risks, but never completely eliminate them. If we insisted all our activities to be risk free, we would never do anything, and I would not judge that moral, either.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

I didn't say it was. But risk is one certainty in life. We can mitigate those risks, but never completely eliminate them. If we insisted all our activities to be risk free, we would never do anything, and I would not judge that moral, either.

If you want to weigh the risks, let’s look at that . . . so engaging in sexual intercourse has the potential to literally create another human being. Another living human being who will require food, shelter, education, and love. A child who once exists has the right to know his mother and father. So, for a married adult couple who engage in sexual intercourse and run “the risk� of having a baby seems like such a choice would be good, right, and responsible. For an unmarried teen age couple where one partner is dying to do so is selfish and immoral.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 26 by RightReason]

So, you are letting the best be the enemy of the good. It seems we must agree to disagree.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 27 by 2ndRateMind]

So, you are letting the best be the enemy of the good.

Not at all. A married husband and wife are far from perfect, but their relationship is also quite different from that of a dying 13 year old and his 13 year old one night stand. It is odd to me to argue my moral position is extreme. I would consider the example given in this thread the extreme one. It also always amazes me when people are so afraid to admit something is immoral.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 28 by RightReason]

So, if we are agreed that not all marital relationships are perfect, and the condition of the hypothetical dying 13 year old boy is not perfect, then what grounds do you have to deny him the right to make love, but not the married others? A ceremony and a civil certificate would seem to be superfluous to the ethics of the case.

Truth is human sexuality has always been, and doubtless always will be, an untidy affair, despite all the moralising of the church and the evangelist right wing of the political spectrum. My own inclination is to be relaxed about 'good' sex, seeing as there is no ethical way to control it, if indeed it should be controlled. I just try to focus on loving my neighbour, and promoting their best interests, irrespective of whether their sexual situation is, or is not, ideal.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind]

So, if we are agreed that not all marital relationships are perfect, and the condition of the hypothetical dying 13 year old boy is not perfect, then what grounds do you have to deny him the right to make love, but not the married others?

Seriously? The same way we make moral decisions about anything. On what grounds do we deny a brother to have sexual relations with his sister? On what grounds do we deny the right for Ted to marry his dog?

Truth is human sexuality has always been, and doubtless always will be, an untidy affair, despite all the moralising of the church and the evangelist right wing of the political spectrum.

LOL! I never mentioned the Church or religion. This hypothetical has nothing to do with religion. We have truly lost the ability to know right from wrong or at least the courage to admit it.